After 240 posts on the subject all I can say is that Barney Fife could have done a better job with this situation. If anything, he was anal about KNOWING the laws. He did not have to look them up:king:

May 16th, 2012, 06:17 PM

smellslikeMI

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dvorak

From everything I've ever read about OC, it would seem a voice recorder (or at least a cell phone to VM recording) is perhaps a mandatory piece of equipment.

While they were waiting for "backup" and looking for a law to stop him from voting, he should have been calling the media.

actually you're right, as standard practice, to avoid he said-she said, my brother clay and i normally have a recording device when we OC. however, his batteries happened to be dead that morning and he wasn't expecting any trouble so he went in without recording.

May 16th, 2012, 06:50 PM

BigStick

Quote:

Originally Posted by smellslikeMI

actually you're right, as standard practice, to avoid he said-she said, my brother clay and i normally have a recording device when we OC. however, his batteries happened to be dead that morning and he wasn't expecting any trouble so he went in without recording.

I would have kept that part to myself if I were you and was trying to convince people it wasn't a stunt.

May 16th, 2012, 08:27 PM

Qtip

I dunno, BigStick. Seems to me if he were out to do a stunt he would have been sure to put batteries in it. It relates more to my own personality anyway. If I normally carried a recorder, I would't bother putting in needed batteries for a quick run to the polls. Either way, I'm not sure how that fact should have any bearing on a person's opinion.

May 17th, 2012, 01:30 PM

Mike1956

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigStick

I would have kept that part to myself if I were you and was trying to convince people it wasn't a stunt.

Kind of like saying that carrying a gun automatically means you are looking for trouble.

May 17th, 2012, 01:50 PM

limatunes

This thread is not about the prudence (or lack thereof) of voice recorders carried by OCers. Let's try to keep things reigned in just a little bit.

IMO, I think that from our viewpoint, OC can be seen as our everyday thing, part of our wardrobe as self defense is one of our primary concerns...but from the other perspective, a rabidly anti-2A sheep could see it as voter intimidation and could portray it as such. If I was an anti and afraid of a properly holstered weapon, I would probably oppose seeing a gun in a polling place.

Mine is on county property and is posted with gunbuster signs, so it's off limits. I disarmed last vote and forgot my holster was still on, and when I went in everyone was staring at me and when I realized it I dropped my pen through my holster to show it was empty. I could just see the tension dissipate. Again, I don't understand that irrational fear...if I had been carrying a carpenters belt full of sharp and blunt objects, I wouldn't have been out of place since a few construction workers were doing just that.

August 22nd, 2012, 08:23 PM

GH

Keep us updated on this lawsuit, smellslikeMI.

August 23rd, 2012, 09:23 AM

OldVet

This is kind of old and many replies to read through, but my thought is that the Marine wasn't denied his right to vote; he was denied entry while armed. It was his option to not secure his firearm, cast his vote, and then pursue the matter afterwards. This was not handled well by all involved.

August 23rd, 2012, 09:26 AM

NotMallNinja

You've got a good attorney there with respect to writing the complaint. It contains all the elements of a good complaint and sets the ground work for summary judgment. The key will be to get the opposing side to stipulate to certain aspects of the case and then to move for summary judgment. Given that the award specified in Indiana Code there would be no need for a jury to determine damages only. You won't get a lot as I'm sure you know but I do not see you failing to prevail on this matter.

August 23rd, 2012, 11:00 AM

NotMallNinja

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldVet

This is kind of old and many replies to read through, but my thought is that the Marine wasn't denied his right to vote; he was denied entry while armed. It was his option to not secure his firearm, cast his vote, and then pursue the matter afterwards. This was not handled well by all involved.

Substitute asking him to remove a Christian cross, a Jewish Star of David, or a Muslim's Hamsa. Would your viewpoint still stand? After all, they would only be denying entry based upon a religious/ethnic identity jewelry.